Here's the thing with bringing someone up from (for example) 5th to 4th: squad matchups.

If the player in 1st place has a squad that would thrash the 4th place player's squad, but would have an autoloss (or just a very difficult) matchup vs the 5th place player's squad, shouldn't the 1st place player have a say in this decision, since HE earned 1st place and shouldn't be penalized with a bad matchup just because the 4th place player decided to leave?

See, if it's a competitive tournament if I was in the 1st place player's shoes, then I completely wouldn't want to play the match...I'd rather take the win from my opponent's forfeit and wait to play in the final round. In fact, in a competitive tournament that I really wanted to win, I can't ever imagine wanting to play another game rather than benefit from an opponent's forfeit; I'd just take the win, have a rest, and be fresh(er) for the finals match.

So while I at first did like the idea of replacing the missing player, I'm starting to think that it's unfair to have a player "promoted" into the playoff rounds. It's not so much unfair to the rest of the players (why should they care?), but it IS unfair to the players who are competing in the playoffs.

_________________"Don't give the tool more credit than the master." --Weeks

Here's the thing with bringing someone up from (for example) 5th to 4th: squad matchups.

If the player in 1st place has a squad that would thrash the 4th place player's squad, but would have an autoloss (or just a very difficult) matchup vs the 5th place player's squad, shouldn't the 1st place player have a say in this decision, since HE earned 1st place and shouldn't be penalized with a bad matchup just because the 4th place player decided to leave?

See, if it's a competitive tournament if I was in the 1st place player's shoes, then I completely wouldn't want to play the match...I'd rather take the win from my opponent's forfeit and wait to play in the final round. In fact, in a competitive tournament that I really wanted to win, I can't ever imagine wanting to play another game rather than benefit from an opponent's forfeit; I'd just take the win, have a rest, and be fresh(er) for the finals match.

So while I at first did like the idea of replacing the missing player, I'm starting to think that it's unfair to have a player "promoted" into the playoff rounds. It's not so much unfair to the rest of the players (why should they care?), but it IS unfair to the players who are competing in the playoffs.

see my previous post... What I am suggesting is let the person that made it in into the top 4 decide if he wants to take the forfeit and make it directly to the finals, or allow the 5th place player to play him for a shot at the finals... I don't know how many people would risk the game but some people are just there to play the game and love the challenge of winning as much as they can. But I do think it has to be the person that is in the top 4's final decision on whether or not to play the game.

I don't ever want to move anyone up to play in a playoff because I feel it would take away from the players who have played well enough to make the playoff!

At the Michigan regional I took 5th place, lost to 1st and 2nd, beat 4th and 7th but don't feel like I earned the right to play in a playoff because I had two loses.

If we go to bumping people up to a playoff, I feel it would cheapen the whole playoff system!

Tim and I both have been the one outside looking in (Tim at Gencon and myself at many regionals. Eight to be exact) and I know that I would feel like crap if I got let in because someone else had to leave (especially at Gencon where I would want the person who earned it to go home with the trophy) no matter the situation.

I don't ever want to move anyone up to play in a playoff because I feel it would take away from the players who have played well enough to make the playoff!

I agree. I would never want to be bumped up as well, and my making a playoff is rare enough as it is. If a top 4 player had to leave for whatever reason, give the top player the bye and let the other two duke it out to play him/her.

I am totally against moving someone up to the finals in a tournament; that won't ever happen in any tournament I run. I also like Tim's (I think it was his...not gonna go back and re-read everything lol) suggestion that as soon as a murmur is heard from someone not wanting/able to play for the T.O. to go to that person and ask them to decide then to play or drop. Repeat that procedure for any others. In the event that there is no time to play (the store is closing, etc.) then I would go back to the ranking order of the previous round.

_________________Cancer is not the boss of me.

Being organized is for people who are too lazy to look for their stuff.

I feel that we need a set way to handle someone leaving across the board so that all regionals would be handled the same.

Johnny I had to call someone else that day to see how to handle it because it was one of the frist regionals and I did not want to handle it wrong. That is why I think we need every thing to be the same from regional to regional.

Some Regionals start all games at the same time to ensure that everyone has the same gameplay time, while others let some games star early and have extra time. It's beyond me why anyone thinks that is fair, but it happens. Anyway - point here was to highlight something that is already done different based on TO.

Luckily, I think the problem is already solved by this discussion. I can't see it ever being handled like it was in MI again.

It's a rare enough circumstance, it's only happened like 2 times in the last 5 years that I know of.

And with this discussion I really think people will be more apt to stay the whole time.

On a side note - it doesn't matter what anyone would do personally in that situation. I would want someone bumped up if I were in the final 4, but I would respectfully decline if I was outside getting bumped up (I'd let the next guy in line take my place). Anyone's opinion on what is done at a regional should not be based on what they themselves would do.

If it is left up to the final 4 and judge/TO, and it has to be a consensus to bump someone up, then that is their decision. Nobody else should have a say in it.

If it is left up to the final 4 and judge/TO, and it has to be a consensus to bump someone up, then that is their decision. Nobody else should have a say in it.

I'm curious: If the top 4 and the TO agree and have consensus that the entire playoff should be skipped because one person has to leave, and the final standings are just the Swiss standings, would that be cool?

R5Don4 wrote:

Is Brad going to be adding the official conclusions of this thread to the next version of the Floor Rules?

I doubt it. Right now there is a ton of stuff left up to the judge/TO discretion. I personally don't like that precedent (I think things should be much more uniform and set in stone), but if THIS gets specified in the floor rules, it opens up the can of worms of specifying all those other things. This is also an argument about a very specific, unusual circumstance, and just leaving it up to the TO (like so many other things) seems like its obviously the best thing to do, and if its up to the TO then nothing needs to be in the floor rules about it.

Brad obviously might think differently, but that's my take.

_________________"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

This is another reason you have all destroyed the game. I am so mad at you all. I just want to say I was not friends or played this game at all. How sad you guys have changed.

Then why are you here? If we piss you off so much and we the community have ruined this game so much, then why? Why waste your time? Quite frankly, I'd prefer if you would just leave. I love the game despite what you might think, and I don't want to or need to listen to you or anyone tell me I'm a terrible person because I destroyed the game you love.

Those are your opinions of what you think ruined the game. I have my opinions as to whom or what is ruining the game but why start a big war, because that will certainly ruin the game. So plz if your going to just come on here and say how terrible we are for the umpteenth time, just don't. We already know what you think, you've made clear many times.

_________________"But one thing I have learned in this process is that flavor can't override the good of the game."-urbanshmi2-

I can honestly say as someone who was THERE when it happened, and not directly effected by it in any way (I wasn't in the final 4 nor in the position to be bumped up), I feel I have a unique vantage point. The true problem was players trying to convince other players to NOT play. I will never be alright with that. It is FAR different if a T.O. directly asks a finalist if they would like to allow someone to be bumped up. I even think it could be done as a silent private vote, so only the T.O. knows who answered what. The issue for me is people being pressured to NOT PLAY. A T.O. asking a finalist if they want to PLAY MORE is very different. That is how I will run it at Chicago, in the rare event that someone wants to drop from the finals.

Based on the Bloomilk poll, at this point we are exactly tied (note post number 9) between option 2 (Never bumping) and 3 (always bumping), and people wanting some possibility for bumping up (3+4) slightly outnumber the ones against it. But really a few votes either way doesn't matter.

I think it's pretty clear the community is pretty divided on the issue of bumping up or not, but the more important issue is virtually unanimous, which is clear by the big goose egg for option number 1 (Just have no finals).

I think we have successfully raised community awareness to the point where the ridiculous scenario that happened at the MI regional this year will never happen again.

Despite what some people still can not understand, the whole reason for starting this conversation was not really to decide between #2, #3 or #4. It was to make sure #1 never happened again.

Though I personally did not vote for #2, I am TOTALLY FINE with a tournament being run that way. In fact, I suspect GenCon will be run that way. Great. No problems there.

What I really hope is that TOs make a decision (be it 2, 3 or 4) and announce it well ahead of time. I don't like the rules being changed after the tournament has started (or even after you've committed to going). Who does? We're gamers, I would think that would irk us all.

Echo wrote:

R5Don4 wrote:

Is Brad going to be adding the official conclusions of this thread to the next version of the Floor Rules?

I doubt it. Right now there is a ton of stuff left up to the judge/TO discretion. I personally don't like that precedent (I think things should be much more uniform and set in stone), but if THIS gets specified in the floor rules, it opens up the can of worms of specifying all those other things. This is also an argument about a very specific, unusual circumstance, and just leaving it up to the TO (like so many other things) seems like its obviously the best thing to do, and if its up to the TO then nothing needs to be in the floor rules about it.

Brad obviously might think differently, but that's my take.

I actually agree with this 100%. Especially with the community divided on the issue of bumping up, really each TO will have to make the call. I really think it's important to announce how it will be run WELL BEFORE the tournament. That way everyone knows how it will work at that particular event, and if that effects whether they will go or not at least they know.

Just getting this conversation going is a win for the community. It raises awareness and now people have legitimate options to choose from. We can actually get back to playing the game we love.

If it is left up to the final 4 and judge/TO, and it has to be a consensus to bump someone up, then that is their decision. Nobody else should have a say in it.

I'm curious: If the top 4 and the TO agree and have consensus that the entire playoff should be skipped because one person has to leave, and the final standings are just the Swiss standings, would that be cool?

I'm still genuinely curious about this.

Look, I understand your point in all this. I also totally agree that playoffs should happen at regionals, especially if they were planned for. I just don't understand your position on how one thing (a player asking another player to not play) is so unfair, but also seemingly holding the view that if everybody involved ("involved" being the TO/judge and the top 4) agrees on a course of action that that's what should be done. I mean, you're being incredibly indignant about what happened, but it seems that a lot of other unfair situations you're fine with.

I actually think that what went down in MI was unfair. I think David put it best when he said that what happened was "theoretical minis"; going through the steps of saying "Well I'm likely to win this match, and he's likely to win that match, and then that's likely to happen, so this is probably how everything will end up, so lets say that's the final standings" is pretty crappy. It just really seems to me that you aren't necessarily fighting for whats fair, but you're fighting for what would make you (and your friends) happiest, which aren't always the same thing.

I take issue with the point of view of "The top 4 and TO/judge should decide what to do in rare, unusual circumstances, but if they make this specific decision than they are WRONG!". Why is that decision the exception? Add that to the fact that I have no sympathy whatsoever for someone being pressured into doing something that they don't want to do, and the fact that a huge amount of complaining seems to be happening well after the event, and this whole discussion just rubs me the wrong way.

If I were in Jake's shoes, I would have said "Sorry Gerry, but I want to play, and I don't think it's fair for us not to. If you feel that you are being forced to play, that's on you, not me. You are free to forfeit your match and leave for the sake of safety.". I like Gerry a lot, he's a cool guy and I always enjoy hanging out with him, and I would hate for something to happen to him because he stayed to play. Gerry's best decision absolutely 100% was to leave. But Gerry has to make that decision for himself.

_________________"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum